Can't Restrict Bar Members' Voting Rights Citing “One Bar, One Vote” When Association Rules Are Not Amended To That Effect: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that the vote of a member of a bar association cannot be restricted citing “One Bar One Vote” when the association has not amended its rule for such restriction. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376] “We hold that there cannot be a deemed application of any Rule. That fiction would be violative of the right of a member which flows from the statute. A Rule could be amended or modified, a right could be restricted by amendment of the Rule, but when the Rule does not specifically restrict such rights, a member cannot be deemed to have his right restricted,” the court said. The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed that when the association members were happy with the existing Rules and had not brought in any resolution or amendment to change the same, the members of the association could not be prevented from voting, stating that they had voted in elections for another bar association. “As members, and particularly as professionals lettered in law, the Office Bearers should have been aware of the flow of law, which stipulates that the Rules should be amended to restrict votes for one vote, one member, one Association. Consciously, MMBA had not amended their Rules. They had taken a very considered decision that such an amendment need not be introduced,” the court said. The court was hearing a plea by Chitradevi challenging the acceptance of candidature of certain individuals in the elections to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA). The petitioner had sought to disqualify the individuals and to prevent them from exercising their voting rights in the bar association election for violation of “One Bar, One Vote”. The petitioner, who was also an advocate, had contested to the post of General Secretary in the election. It was submitted that when the final list of candidates was put up, it was found that the individual respondents had also submitted their names for elections. The petitioner argued that the individual respondents were already holding posts in the Women Advocate Association and that they should not have been permitted to contest in the elections, or to vote in the elections for the MMBA. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry also supported the stand of the petitioner. It was submitted that even as per the Form-A which is to be submitted as per the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of practice (Verification) Rules 2015, the name of only one bar association could be given. It was thus argued that when such a form had been filled by a prospective candidate, who has to specify one particular Association, he /she cannot exercise vote for more than one particular Association. The court however noted that there was nothing to show that the association had amended its Rules to prevent any member from voting/contesting in other association than the MMBA. The court also noted that the respondent individuals became members of the Women Advocate Association by default but became members of the MMBA upon paying subscription, applying for it and being recognised as members of the MMBA. The court noted that once the respondents had been inducted into the MMBA, they could claim the rights provided to them under the Rules of the association. The court noted that every recognised member of the association could cast a vote and the rules also provided every eligible member, to contest in elections. Thus, the court noted that the Election Officer had rightly accepted the names of the respondents. The court was not inclined to interfere with the elections. Noting that the elections had been conducted, the court directed the results to be published. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. C. Kishore Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Niranjan S Kumar, Mr. M. Saravana Kumar, Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram, Mr. V. Alex Benny Hook, Mr. S. Vinodh Case Title: GK Chitradevi v The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376 Case No: WP(MD) No. 10780 of 2026Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Can't Restrict Bar Members' Voting Rights Citing “One Bar, One Vote” When Association Rules Are Not Amended To That Effect: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Can't Restrict Bar Members' Voting Rights Citing “One Bar, One Vote” When Association Rules Are Not Amended To That Effect: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers